Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

What do they know about anything??? This study just proves what I knew all along - the scientists are all in collusion with each other AND the government to take my gas and my guns and my cigarettes!!!

Once upon a time the capitalist system, a tremendous advance over the feudal system of property that preceded it, drove an unprecedented expansion of scientific and technical progress.

Now capitalism is in its imperialist epoch of terminal decay, dragging humankind into a new dark ages. Only the proletariat can save humanity by smashing the power of the bourgeoisie and inaugurating the socialist future! Workers to power!

I know you are joking, but I think Karl Marx was probably more right on that than we'd think - and that open source, crowdsourcing, and others are the tip of that.

The problem with his image is that people tried to force it, and changes like that can't be forced, they have to come because society has changed to the point where they are necessary. Trying to force it just means you'll get it wrong, as the structures needed to even understand what you are doing correctly haven't been built yet.

Which means what we'll get is nothing like what tried to imitate it, and probably nothing like what we'd imagine it to be.

I think communism works great at a community level but doesn't scale very well. It's why families who pool resources thrive. The allocation of resources is better defined. The incentive to contribute is stronger because the benefits are more apparent. It's communistic principles working within a larger, more capitalistic environment.

The problem when you try to do implement this on a national scale isn't due to people being forced into it. If anything, the masses are probably more likely to go along excepting they'll get something out of it. The problem is that you're eliminating incentive. If you're getting a stable allotment regardless of what you do, what's the reason to work any harder? The betterment of the nation is too abstract for most to appreciate.

And the fact of the matter is that humans will abuse any system they implement. You're always going to need some form of leadership and inevitably those who are connected with find a means to aggrandize themselves. People are pretty good at finding ways to cheat any system. So inevitably you end up with the haves and have nots, except that in communism it's institutionalized.

As always, the best approaches borrow from a wide variety of mindsets and implement them at levels where they fit best. And it's probably a sliding scale, requiring more or less of any particular element based on prevailing conditions. And when you account for cultural tendencies things get even more complex.

When a certain in-duh-vidual started claiming there was mercury in vaccines & even RFIDs, I pointed-out that mercury was removed years ago. I also politely asked for proof of the RFIDs.

At first the guy said I need to do my own research, and I said I already did, but I've found nothing. Then he blew up and started calling me nasty names & other bullshit.

These conspiracy persons have more problems than just lack of faith in scientific research. They have emotional/anger management issues. Of course that also means I won the argument..... he never did provide proof that vaccines have RFIDs in them.

Winning a debate, on the other hand, is a lot easier. All you have to do is make the other guy look like an idiot.
Arguing with a conspiracy nuts is a waste of time. Debating them, in front of others, is beneficial.

You bring your opponent over to your point of view and they agree with your superior logic and evidence.

You are brought over to your opponents position and agree with their superior logic and evidence.

Unless I am mistaken, you haven't listed two way to win an argument; you've listed one way to win and one way to lose. These don't even exhaust the ways there are to end an argument.

There actually are two ways to win an argument, namely(1)You bring your opponent over to your point of view and they agree with your superior logic and evidence.(2) You bring your opponent over to your point of view through some logically irrelevant means.

The number of irrelevant means are endless: wear him down, make him feel

Conspiracy theorists tend to be middle-aged, majority, males, with a sense of powerlessness. The conspiracy tends to give them a sense that they, alone, know the truth. It's an obsession, and they tend to wrap their own self-worth in their "knowledge". Since they have no other purpose for existing, they can't be persuaded otherwise. (Until another, better, conspiracy comes along)

Personally, I find gardening much, much, more fulfilling than most conspiracies, but I do like to make up a good one now

I do not "reject" science as my socialist detractors may claim. Rather, I merely withhold my currency from the marketplace of ideas in order to incentivize the production of science more in line with today's consumer preferences!

Its remarkable how many people criticizing this study have concluded the authors are socialists. How do you know? What is your evidence? You have already made up your mind that these researchers are just colluding with other scientists to make a political point that deniers of science are conspiracy nuts.

But you have no evidence at all. How many of you have already run off and read the paper yet... thoroughly? And yet, here you are condemning it. Wow! Good way to prove the authors point but announcing a conspiracy when you see science you don't like (but haven't read). Their work has just been beautifully f*$king demonstrated here in the comments section of/.

This "study" is heavily polluted by republican propaganda. Did these test subjects come to these conclusions under their own accord, or were they influenced by right leaning media (Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, etc.).

People feel the need to identify with social groups, and therefore may be influenced by others in their social group. In my opinion, it's why people align along party lines. In other words, I suspect the cause is social, not neurological, as implied above.

It is interesting to me how the topics are chosen to determine what is rejection of science and what is not. For example this week another study came out that organic is not healthier than conventional, yet the anti-free market people reject that science as bogus.

I reject the idea that CO2 is going to cause global warming, but accept lung cancer is caused by smoking and AIDS by HIV. I ignore the creationists, but accept that they are free to believe what they want to on that, but evolution all the way for me.

I have also been an R&D engineer for more than a decade. Somehow the idea that because I accept free-market principles instead of central planning indicates that I am anti-science is total bullshit.

Of course since this is a peer-reviewed paper I could be labeled as anti-science for not accepting this paper, but that is something I am willing to risk.

What is "strong" and "weak" in this case. In my experience, "strong" regulation correlates with a less free market. The reason is that compliance with all that regulation creates barriers to entry to who can enter and use the market.

Much like Laffer curve, it has a peak somewhere between strong and weak. With overly weak regulation, you pretty much inevitably end up with large companies monopolizing whole markets and becoming nearly impossible to unseat without direct interference - mid-to-late 19th century USA is a classic example of that.

Also, it's worth remembering who can be providing the regulation. It's a fairly common assumption that only governments regulate. But private markets can and do provide their own regulation.

Let's ignore things such as that different blogs were offered radically different versions of the survey to post (and the primary determinant of the differences seems to be whether the survey was being offered to a blog supporting AGW or denying it), though that by itself probably invalidates the results.

The main concern remains that out of a survey, of 1100 people only 3 skeptics strongly accepted, the conspiracies, and of these two were highly suspect (it's worth reading through the discussion). If this was just a paper in a journal, nobody would care. But again we see science by press relase, and pre-press release (Corner Guardian article). Do you really think it justified the heading of the paper, and the Telegraph newspaper headline? This is what drew attention to the paper, and this is what annoyed people.

Given the low number of skeptical respondents overall, these two possibly scammed responses significantly affect the results regarding conspiracy theory ideation. Indeed, given the dubious interpretation of weakly agreed responses, this paper has no data worth interpreting with regard to conspiracy theory ideation. It is my strong opinion that the paper should be have its publication delayed while undergoing a substantial rewrite.

The rewrite should indicate explicitly why the responses regarding conspiracy theory ideation are in fact worthless, and concentrate solely on the result regarding free market beliefs (which has a strong enough a response to be salvageable). If this is not possible, it should simply be withdrawn.

I daresay Lewandowsky must have cheated on his exams on experimental design and statistics as a student.

PS Lewandowsky's choice of a title is, and should be, far more damaging to his reputation as a scientist than the other flaws in his paper. The title of the paper smacks of political activism and sensationalism, not professionalism.

The operative word is ideology which is "the body of doctrine, myth, belief, etc., that guides an individual, social movement, etc." Once you subscribe to an ideology, you tend to be close minded to alternatives. Contrast that against the scientific process that uses hypothesis, evidence, and theory to drive belief and action. A true scientist would constantly test existing theories against new evidence and reformulate new hypotheses and theories to support the new evidence.

The free market is one of those funny ideas. Free markets are good at reconciling supply and demand. Unfortunately, free markets can form into oligopolies and cartels which are sub optimal at resolving supply and demand. There is a difference between supporting free markets and having a free market ideology. I support a free market and expect government regulations to keep the market free. I also expect the government to solve social issues that the free market is unable or unwilling to solve.

It's kind of like Darwinism. Scientific evidence supports the theory of natural selection and evolution. I can go in my back yard watch animals behaving in a Darwinian manner. I subscribe to Darwinian theory, but I am not a Darwinian ideologist. I don't believe people have to behave that way. I believe as a society we can do better than that.

Not that scientists don't fall into ideologies around a particular sciences. It sometimes takes a crafty politician (and scientist) to convince a scientific body accept a new theory.

I didn't follow this from the summary: who doesn't think that HIV causes AIDS? And why would they think that? Do they not think that the Flu virus causes the Flu, or is it only HIV that they're singling out?

The internet has done one thing very very well, propagate stupidity faster that passes off as science or news.

There is a local radio station that has a PSA about how to be "greener", and the majority of the suggestions and "facts" claimed in the PSA are just plain wrong.

For instance they claim that driving 120 km/h in a 100 km/h zone uses 20% more gas. This is fundamentally stupid because there is no correlation to an increase in speed by X% matches the increased rate of fuel consumption.

Another gem, apparently Canadians throwing out plastic garbage bags results in millions (plural) of tonnes of landfill waste a year. The average plastic grocery bag weighs 6 grams. There is therefore 166666666667 bags in 1 million metric tonnes (169341166667 in a long tonne). THis breaks down to each Canadian throwing out over 4500 bags a year. I personally do not do that much shopping.Also I can't stand the idea of "mythmatics", the idea that large numbers are scary so we should reduce those numbers to be green. Yes 1 million tonnes is a big scary number, however consider how much of ALL garbage is thrown out. Statistics Canada suggests the average Canadian throws out 1 tonne of garbage a year, which means the total impact of even throwing out 4500 plastic grocery bags is only 2.7%. However I doubt the average Canadian even throws out 1/10 of that many bags a year, meaning that really less then 0.3% of total landfill waste is from plastic bags.

Throwing out plastic bags is the biggest non-issue compared to the rest of the weight of garbage that is thrown out.

Most of this is regurgitated stupidity from the internet based in little fact and a lot of hyperbole. People read about it online and then re-broadcast it without investing any amount of time verifying it.

The problem is that the internet has become very good at showing content that looks factual, even makes sense if you think about it, but is based on no facts, no science, and is ultimately wrong, but then gets propagated over and over again until it basically becomes urban myth.

A lot of "Green" science is mired in this kind of social disinformation.

The fact of the matter is that the paper did *not* observe what it claims to observe, and was so shoddy and filled with methodological errors, it shouldn't have gotten past the first glance of peer review.

The name of that journal jumped out at me for some reason. I had to follow up to learn why it unsettled me so.

Not having been provided a link to the journal, I sought it online. It seems that it is one of many published by the 'Association for Psychological Science'. Each of these journals has a dramatic cover depicting a side view of a male head either receding or projecting in six increments.

I was unable to find this article but pleasantly surprised that I could access some other articles in full text. The subject and content of the articles is about what one might expect- a serious statistical analysis of some perceived phenomenon followed by a conclusion.

I have my own ideas of what science should be. Someone comes up with a theory and then proceeds with all his might to try to disprove that theory. Then all his friends and enemies try to disprove the theory. If they should all fail, then there is hope that something has been learned. Many areas of 'science' seem to fail this test.

I love the concept of psychology and the occasional insights that come of the discipline. I've studied it off and on for over 50 years, through a number of fashionable deviations. I'm sure there is hope for some good result due to the millions of people who dedicate themselves to this interest.

It's just that I really struggle with the concept of science being so closely associated with the exploration of psychology. Can we really use the word science, the same word that we use for physics and chemistry, in relation to psychology?

Using online polls limits the scope of the findings, it doesn't invalidate them, nor is it "bad science". It also doesn't mean this one study is the end-all authority on the matter. It's good information that can be collected into a larger view of things.

There's a reason why the same people who deny science also buy into the particular right-wing brand of free-market economics promoted by the Republican Party and libertarians, and the reason is that it's just another form of pseudoscience.
It's part of a pattern of thinking (or lack of thinking, to be more accurate) that we see on the right, where people refuse to acknowledge basic realities that don't fit their worldview.

Republicans argue that they can somehow manage to balance the budget. Yet they advoca

> Meanwhile the libertarians argue that they can somehow create an economic utopia by unleashing a> sociopathic social order in which corporations are free to do whatever they want without oversight by> the government.

I have to disagree with this chracterization as a bit too simplistic. Corps are legal fictions created through the power of the state. They are fictional entities which stand in the place of a person, to convey limited liability on the actual corp owners.

In fact, many libertarians are against limited liability at all. How this could, in any way, be described as pro-corperate, I just don't see. In fact, I can think of few things that would be less pro-corperate than elimination of limited liability.... it guts the entire concept of a corp.

Personally, as something of a libertarian myself (not entirely), I am not against its eliminatuon nor for it, because I see it as a useful pact with the government, and one which legitimizes regulation...afterall, they are fictional non-person entities, and are recieving a benefit for becoming such.... seems the government which offers this priviledge should be free to put whatever restrictions that they like on it.

In my view, I tend to say taxes are theft and extorition, not so with corp taxes...for that very reason.

The problem is finding who is liable. Libertarians usually say let the courts decide but going to court against a rich entity, whether person or corporation is like playing poker with a stacked deck. Whoever has the money can drag things out until the one without money folds.They were talking about the Exxon Valdez on the radio today. Seems that after 25 years it is still in court trying to settle who is liable. The owners of the oil who hired the ship? The owner of the ship, who is a shell corporation but

"The fun part they didn't apparently check is that the 'Free Market' folks are also going to be the most likely to deny evolution....which is the ultimate 'free market'. "

I don't believe that the majority of purported "free marketers" are actually what they claim; I believe, that many who claim to be in favor of free markets, are mostly self-applying the label due to the usual American knee-jerk reaction to the "Socialism" bogeyman.

My run-ins with creationists in time fits this model rather well. They're no

So you filter the science you accept based purely on your ideology. How does that make you one bit different than a Creationist?

Or to put it another way, if puking millions of years of sequestered CO2 into the atmosphere in the space of three centuries is leading to serious, even severe consequences, how exactly does your political ideology matter in the least?

It strikes me that the story of King Canute demonstrating to his subordinates that his status and power could not stop the tide is on you should ponder. The universe doesn't give a flying fuck about your political leanings, or mine or anyone else's. It will crush a libertarian, a communist or a conservative equally.

All you are telling me is that libertarians and other absolutist free market types have formulated an economic system profoundly unsuited to deal with substantial changes in our environment. Instead of saying "the free market can solve the problem of AGW", what you are really saying is "it cannot, so science must be ignored in the pursuit of short term goals."

Reality dictates how you live. You can live your libertarian fantasy all you like, but at the end of the day some problems require a society's effort. More importantly, some problems don't require your opinion. If AGW Isis happening (and the overwhelming majority of scientists in related fields say it is) then we can either sit around on our asses, watch it all happen and receive solace from our ideologies, or we can admit that there is such a thing as society, indeed civilization, and find a way to prevent the worst.

Even democracies have had conscription. And this problem does not require anywhere near that kind of direct state intervention.

I'd like my grandchildren to have a reasonably decent planet I live on. If that means higher taxes and moving to alternatives, then so be it. Christ, the West beat the Germans and the Soviets, and spent a helluva lot of money to do it. What's you're problem now?

As I said, the collective does not have authority to steal freedoms from the individual, and when it tries, it always backfires and makes whatever the perceived problem is worse.

The collective always has the authority to steal freedoms from individuals. Even the smallest society, one without a government, will deny you the freedom to shit in the communal water supply. They'll shun you, they'll banish you, and they'll ignore the fact that someone just killed you because you had it coming by practicing your freedom to shit in the communal water supply.That's reality, if you're part of a collective, you don't have total freedom.

At most a climitologist can rightfully say the Earth is warming, CO2 is the cause and human activity is the likely cause of the increase of CO2. Beyond that they should say NOTHING. Other scientists, in other fields, are qualified to evaluate proposed policies.

Que? A climatologist is best positioned to evaluate a proposal to see how it may affect the climate.

The second they use the cloak of science to push policy solutions they aren't scientists anymore, they are amateur politicians. Emphasis on the amateur.

Oh, it seems that you are confused by the meaning of "politician". For one thing, all good politicians are "amateur" - a professional politician is the worst sort.

Next, a politician isn't someone who creates "policy solutions". A politician in a representative democracy represents the voice of the people. He selects from the among the expert proposals the ones which align with the people's wishes, puts them forward to a legislature, listens to the alternatives, debates them, and ultimately votes on them in line with the wishes of those he represents.

To recap: a politician does not create solutions. He is not a professional in any particular field. He can't be - he's voted in as a voice of the people, not an expert on a particular thing.

That's like saying a butcher is best positioned to evaluate how much meat someone needs to throw a successful barbeque.

Which they are.

I'm sure what you're saying is, "But uh there's a butcher conspiracy and they'll all say AS MUCH MEAT AS POSSIBLE because that'll make them rich!"

Except that - and I thought this is what you free markedroids always argue when you say that All Regulation Is Evil - it's in no butcher's interest to lie about how much meat someone needs, as then they'll stop being trusted and no-one will listen to them any more.

Not that the analogy is valid, of course, as a climatologist is a lot more likely to get big funding from big business if he sells out his soul and says "global warming doesn't exist.. err I mean has nowt to do with humans yo" than if he gets paid a government wage to tell the truth.

Its a good idea to have scientists advising politicians on science. They know a HELL of a lot more about science than politicians.

I mean, we just had a guy on a congressional science committee forcefully and publicly proclaim that women emit some kind of magical substance to prevent pregnancy when "legitimately" raped.

I think that this pretty clearly shows that we need more science in political discussions about science. Just because Akin is a "professional" politician does not mean that he is suddenly great at making political decisions regarding science on his own.

And hell, we all know that if scientists completely divorced themselves from the political and social ramifications of their work, that you would be whining to high hell about how scientists isolate themselves in their ivory towers and can't communicate with the public. But if they do communicate their results to the public and talk about real world ramifications you get upset that they might be influencing politics directly related to their work.

Its a good idea to have scientists advising politicians on science. They know a HELL of a lot more about science than politicians.

No, not really. It is good to keep scientists around to tell the public when politicians are horrifically wrong scientifically, but there is no reason that scientists should be "advising" a politician. When you mix scientists in with politicians, you lose the scientist. You can't run public policy by the scientific method, or else you would get nuanced versions of healthcare bills with enough exceptions to fill 10^9 pages of text. You also can't investigate the universe with politics, or else you get thing

No, not really. It is good to keep scientists around to tell the public when politicians are horrifically wrong scientifically, but there is no reason that scientists should be "advising" a politician.

What's the point of having people who know what to do if they can't tell the people who decide what to do what should be done?

However, many of the solutions posited are ECONOMIC solutions designed to reduce the amount of CO2 output.

At this point the debate about solutions to global warming should look to Economists for evaluation of those proposed solutions, Climatologists are now not the experts who are needed to evaluate the proposed solutions.

Sadly, Akin was informed by a doctor who actually believes that idiocy. Of course, that doctor should lose his medical license for gross lack of knowledge of basic human anatomy. (Side note: If women could prevent pregnancy by expelling unwanted sperm, birth control companies would immediately go out of business.)

But when debating the policy implications of AGW a climatoligist is useless. What insight can they offer into whether cap and trade is a good idea?

There are at least five important questions whose answers are needed to address whether cap-and-trade is a good idea:

1. How much effect would cap-and-trade have on GHG emissions?2. What other direct effects would cap-and-trade have besides its effect on reducing emissions?3. What would the climate impact be of the effects described in #1?4. Would any of the effects described in #2 have climate effects, and, if so, what effects?5. Does the net social benefit of the climate effects in #3-4, combined with the net social benefit of the non-climate effects described in #2, offset the net social costs of effects described in #2.

#1-4 are scientific questions. #5 is a question that, while there may be some scientific aspects of it (aside from those in the preceding questions on which it relies) is largely about subjective values.

Of the four scientific questions, two of them are questions specifically about climatology. So, while there's very good reason for there to be other scientists providing input, its pretty clear that climatologists have quite a lot to contribute on the question.

They aren't economists.

Since one of the scientific questions listed above is largely an economic one (#1) and one is partially an economic one (#2), there certainly is a role for economists advising on the issue as well. But that role is not exclusive of the role of climatologists, as there remain climatological questions that are important in addressing the utility of cap and trade (or any approach to climate change, since the effectiveness of the approach in addressing the core problem it seeks to address will always involve a question of climatology, even if it also involves other questions.)

If the conversation turns to carbon sequestration they aren't the person to ask whether that is feasable.

No, but once someone else provides input on the degree to which sequestration is feasible and what other near-term environmental impacts that sequestration will have, your going to need to turn to climatology to answer what the net effect of the sequestration (both from the direct carbon reductions and indirectly through any environmental side effects) is likely to be on climate.

If we want to talk alternative energy they can't provide any insight on that either.

They certainly are the best positioned, once others answer what is feasible and what effects those options would have on GHG emissions and other environmental inputs, to provide insight on what those alternatives are likely to do in terms of climate. Which, when evaluating alternative energy supplies as a solution to a climate problem, is a pretty critical insight.

You need different scientists and experts to answer those questions.

Its true that you need a variety of experts to address those questions.

Its not true that the need for other scientists to address those questions means you don't also need climatologists to address each of them.

Climatology is a pretty narrow specialty.

Yes, but its pretty freaking central to evaluating options to address climate change, for reasons which should be intuitively obvious to the most casual observer.

What is it that makes you say they are political hack poseurs? Do you have a criticism of their methodology, or is it just that you don't like what they're saying? The paper doesn't seem to be relying on the theory of climate change being true.

I think it's cute that you're upset at a debasemt of science, as you reject scientific findings based on your gut feelings.

One imagines Jmorris1 arguing in the vatican that Galileo Galilei should be punished for besmirching the honor of science and astronomy by clearly promoting falsehoods.

There's no "likely" about it.
We know exactly where the C02 increase is coming from. Every year humans pull millions of barrels of oil out of the ground, billions of tons of coal, and trillions of cubic meters of natural gas. Then we burn them, and that releases carbon dioxide. Using the word "likely" implies that there's actually some uncertainty here or reasonable doubt. There are legitimate areas of debate (exactly how much it warm? how fast? what are the costs and benefits of various policies?) but whe

What does Sally Field have to do with this subject? When a person testifies before congress, they are invited or compelled. If you think that a guest from 30 some odd years ago was inappropriate, you should have complained then. However, over these last couple of decades plenty of accredited people have testified before congress about climate change, but the GOP has claimed them all to be liars in their day.

The second they use the cloak of science to push policy solutions they aren't scientists anymore

Where do you prove that?

Democrat delenda est

Democrat must be destroyed. Are you talking about ending Democracy? Why?

A contentious comment which lacks rational thought has no purpose but to insult.

It insults the reader; it insults logic; it insults intelligence; it insults humanity.

It is possible to find a subtle but remarkable fault in established reasoning, but you had better be damn good at showing it. It is possible write something logical which is based on uncommon premises, but those premises must be made clear.

For example, to dismiss global warming is anti-science in the sense that the scientific consensus disagree

We notice that all of the mentioned 'science' issues are tied to public policy positions of the left and that the 'scientists' are working outside their areas of expertise when they push policy solutions to the problems they 'find.'

Whole lines of research were simply forbidden as career ending. Consipracy theories almost always pop up in vacumns of fact, especially when it is pretty obvious that facts are suspected but being supressed.

We notice that all of the mentioned 'science' issues are tied to public policy positions of the left and that the 'scientists' are working outside their areas of expertise when they push policy solutions to the problems they 'find.'

Whole lines of research were simply forbidden as career ending. Consipracy theories almost always pop up in vacumns of fact, especially when it is pretty obvious that facts are suspected but being supressed.

So... is your post some kind of satire, or what?

Bloody good question. These right wing nut jobs are so far out there these days that it's hard to tell the satirists from the real deal.

It was actually Earvin "Magic" Johnson who was declared HIV positive. And yes, he has remained AIDS free. While I personally find this miraculous to the point of incredulity, I'm willing to believe he has a good combination of genetics, a fantastic health regimen, and lots of money for experimental drugs to stave off full-blown AIDS. For the record, there are recorded cases of people who live with the HIV virus and never show symptoms without taking ANY special medication.

It was actually Earvin "Magic" Johnson who was declared HIV positive. And yes, he has remained AIDS free. While I personally find this miraculous to the point of incredulity, I'm willing to believe he has a good combination of genetics, a fantastic health regimen, and lots of money for experimental drugs to stave off full-blown AIDS. For the record, there are recorded cases of people who live with the HIV virus and never show symptoms without taking ANY special medication.

HIV, the human immunodeficiency virus, has been traced back to simian immunodeficiency virus (SIV), which has been traced back to feline immunodeficiency virus (FIV), which has been traced back to bovine immunodeficiency virus (BIV). Some web hits. [google.com]

If I understand things correctly, retroviruses tend, over time, to evolve to be less than fatal to the host. That's just basic selection pressure -- if a virus kills its host, it's lost its home; meanwhile, the selection pressure on host is to not be killed by

That's strange; I thought it was Timothy Ray Brown [webmd.com] the only man to be officially declared cured from AIDS. Apparently, he was cured 3 years ago as a result of a bone marrow transplant (to cure leukemia) from a donor with a rare genetic mutation that makes him/her immune to HIV. Brown was declared cured last July.

Jordan had the best HIV and AIDS preventative treatment in the world. and even common people are living for decades without going into terminal immune states if they have the insurance to afford the hundreds of thousands of dollars in treatments. HIV is now something that one can be expected to live a long life with if they stick to a strict treatment plan. That is a terrible example.

Do you really believe that groups of people, regardless of their level of psychological commitment to any idea, are capable of convincing literally thousands of people in their own profession, aligned professions and knowledgeable bystanders to simply ignore facts and evidence, and to promulgate, knowingly, wrong information, proudly, authoritatively, and consistently without error.

And then, granting this is even possible, they're able to recruit entirely new generations of people, people who may not even have been born when the "lie" was originally concocted, to repeat the same lies, over and over, to not ask questions, to not pursue the truth, to simply obey, mindlessly, and to do so for nothing more than the remuneration of the occasional government grant (which they gotta fight like hell for regardless).

The problem is, if you all of this as true, you've successfully killed the Enlightenment and any principle of self-government through reason and debate. If conspiracies decide what the popular mind accepts as "fact," we might as well have kings and clerics decide the best course of action, because democracy in such a world is pointless. The people are sheeple, the books are cooked, and votes are a waste of energy, energy that could be more effectively spent by elite, autocratic decision makers.

No. I have looked into the HIV/AIDS thing enough to be willing to bet that if it isn't the entire story it is pretty close to it. But when the banhammer came down in the 1980s on any dissent (the science is settled! Settled I say!) there was still some room for doubt.

This 1980s "ban" on dissent you mention-- you mean the one that allowed him a major article in 1989, "Human immunodeficiency virus and acquired immunodeficiency syndrome: correlation but not causation" in the Proceedings of the National Academies of Sciences? That "1980s" ban?

Pretty ineffective "ban" I'd say, since he continued publishing his theories well into the 2000s, long long after they were thoroughly discredited. Turns out, the science actually was settled, and, well guess what-- the scientific researchers really did know what they were doing.

Duesberg has the unique distinction among wackos, though, that his rhetoric of "HIV doesn't cause AIDS so go ahead and have sex even if you're HIV positive, it won't hurt anybody (but don't take those antiviral drugs!)" actually did result in killing large numbers of people.

Except that HIV treatments have improved dramatically since the early 90's when Mr. Johnson (not Jordan) announced his diagnosis, with people being diagnosed today having a life expectancy slightly shorter than - but actually approaching - the general population. Of course, it depends on how quickly you start treatment after diagnosis, how far along your infection has progressed when you're diagnosed, your overall health, and your access to appropriate treatments.

But Magic Johnson has survived a bit over 20 years with his HIV under control; That's not even really an outlier based on today's prognosis - proper medication and treatment will turn it into a chronic, but mostly manageable, disease for many people. Given that Johnson was famous, rich, and presumably in excellent physical condition, it's not all that surprising that he'd have access to the best care available, and survive for a long time as a result.

You should probably also look up Long-Term Non-Progressors (HIV "controllers"), and the general natural history (infection process) of HIV. After initial infection, HIV typically enters clinical latency which can last up to 20 years (avg. of about 10 years, I believe). AIDS is only diagnosed when T-cell counts drop below a certain level, or one of the opportunistic infections associated with AIDS is diagnosed.

Given his diagnosis about 20 years ago, and the increasing efficacy of HIV treatments in the last 20 years... it's really not all that shocking that a young, healthy, rich man with access to the best care that money & fame can buy, and who also happens to be in excellent physical condition as a professional athlete, even if he's not a "controller," would be able to survive past his initial diagnosis for this long.

It was the only disease in human history to get a bizarre sort of 'rights' attached to it.

Leprosy? Epilepsy? People who contract many kinds of diseases don't get extra rights, but the government must to take action to make sure they are not discriminated against due to a pernicious folk belief that they are "unclean" or immoral.

For any illness, there will always be people who are, for reasons we may or may not understand, immune. There will also always be people who, for reasons we may or may not understand, will become asymptomatic carriers.

Ever heard of the phrase 'Typhoid Mary'?

Conspiracy theories are no different than religion. You have True Believers who will continue to espouse their belief no matter how much evidence you provide to the contrary.

Before science figures out how some specific thing works exactly, it figures o

Anyone that rejects AGW, vaccination of children, evolution, the earth not being the center of the solar system, or any other of the misguided beliefs the right seems to cling to is, quite simply, ignorant. When an overwhelming majority of scientists give you incontrovertible evidence and you scramble to rationalize your beliefs any way you can rather than doing the logical thing and accepting that you may have been mistaken, you are letting stubbornness and ego cloud your judgment. You might as well be l

or any other of the misguided beliefs the right seems to cling to is, quite simply, ignorant

While I agree, it's important to note that the left can be equally stupid. Most of the "People are allergic to WiFi" and/or "Vaccines are dangerous" and/or "My naturopath can cure cancer" fools are on the left.

Careful, there. There's a broad spectrum of rejection. Anyone who says that humans haven't affected the climate at all is ignorant. However, this still leaves many questions for which the answers are less than adequate:

How much of the change in temperature is caused by humans, and how much is caused by natural cyclical variation?

How much is caused by our CO2 emissions versus our considerable water vapor emissions?

This is a fallacy of guilt by association, and you are lumping together several different things for which there are independent arguments or criticisms hoping that the taint of one of those things will rub off onto the other topics.

This also shows in you an ignorance of the scientific method, where everything can and should be questioned, including anthroprogenic global warming (or "climate change" as it were). This isn't living in the dark ages, it is questioning the assumptions being used to meet the co

Questions about vaccinations were actually valid when it came to mercury in thiomersal [wikipedia.org]. However with that preserving agent no longer in use in Western countries (with the exception of multi-dose flu vaccine vials, and increasingly being banned in 3rd world countries as well), those concerns are far less valid. Nevertheless, for some diseases, vaccinations are justified on the basis of rare complications yet those complications become almost non-existent with good nutrition. It's not unreasonable to ask whe

We doubt AGW because we have been given very solid fact based reasons to.

Let's see: nineteen different institutions on four continents are running global circulation models ("climate models") that show the relationship between human-generated carbon dioxide and temperature. They must all be conspiring to cover up the truth, right? And also to cover up some error in the original 1967 Manabe and Wetherald calculation, the prediction of which fits the data taken over the last fifty years. I know of five different groups doing global temperature measurements, using everything from ship-based measurements to balloons to satellites. They're all in cahoots too, I assume?

Yes, so far I'd say it does look like people-- you-- who reject the findings from climate science tend to also subscribe to conspiracy theories.

We see hacks like Mann protected from the consequences of his fraud with the 'Hockey Stick" and nay, even rewarded for it. Cleared from all wrongdoing by the same corrupt institution that turned a blind eye to Sandusky...

You mean, cleared from all wrongdoing by the eight corrupt institutions. You are aware that there have been eight different investigations of the alleged wrongdoings purportedly revealed by the stolen emails from the CRU at East Anglia, and that all of them said that there was no fraud? So your conspiracy includes the National Science Foundation and the UK House of Commons Science and Technology Committee.

Yep, you're indeed a data point confirming the study: people who reject the findings from climate science subscribe to conspiracy theories.

I hear what you're saying and it sounds like "stop oppressing the ultra-rich!"

Everyone, prodded hard enough, can be shown to hold dear some unsubstantiated hypotheses about the world.

But someone on the right has the ultimate aim of helping themselves, either convinced or pretending to be convinced that it'll help other people if everyone strives to help himself. This is an ego-increasing exercise, and too much ego produces an insane amount of self-belief. Self-belief is the origin of faith or conspiracy or whatever you want to call it. This is why conspiracy theories on the right are very well-organised: there is a tremendous amound of unwarranted self-belief.

Those on the left do have their own conspiracy theories, but they tend to be a lot weaker and less organised. This is because it's hard to reconcile "be selfless and love one another" with "here's this thing I think and I have no evidence for it but I am quite convinced in myself". Selfless objectivity and subjectivity tend not to mix. Leftist conspiracy theories are thus more a failure of mind than inherent to the principles of their politics.

Ah. If right-wingers promote a conspiracy it's a right-wing issue, but if left-wingers promote a conspiracy, it "isn't a right-wing or left-wing issue".

If you really don't think the anti-vac crowd, the 9/11 Truthers, or Michael Moore count as left-wing conspiracy theorists, then people who reject climate change or the link between cigarettes and cancer shouldn't count as right-wing conspiracy theorists either.

Also, many of the HIV conspiracy theorists are actually left-wingers as well. Look at Louis Farra

If you read the New Testament, you will find that Jesus never advocated any political ideology, nor did He advocate any government policy. Simply advocating that you personally help others with your own time, talents and resources (as opposed to ordering other people to do it) is not the same thing as advocating for a policy of forced wealth redistribution. I don't call that "socialism" because that doesn't match the textbook definition of socialism, which is an economic regime under which

Wow, sounds like you hurt your back bending so far backwards to miss the point eh?

Note that I said 'leaned socialist', not 'was a card carrying Socialist'.

Jesus certainly DID advocate a certain social order and priorities from the individual level on up. That social order is more closely fit by some variety of socialist philosophy (not necessarily Socialist, just socialist) than by free market capitalism. That is not quite the same as advocating a political ideology, but certainly some such ideologies are b

That's why Saul of Tarsus very rapidly made a takeover bid for the new religion and got it back on track, and why the Protestants are always quoting "Saint" Paul "I hate faggots. Give me money" and not all that awful stuff about loving your neighbor (which is pure socialism).

The fisherman parable that you are referring to is not from the Bible. Earliest references to the "Teach a man to fish..." quote attribute it to a Chinese proverb, but it was probably invented in the Victorian England.

With the free market bit I don't think that they are labeling anyone as crazy. Rather, they seem to be suggesting that free market proponents will dismiss evidence that counters their established views, which is probably true of many people who hold ideologies.

One interesting aspect of the report is that the conspiracy theorists tend to side with the corporations over science. While I do see how this is an attractive conspiracy, I would think that people would be more likely to think that the companies are conspiring against science to further their economic goals.

While I do see how this is an attractive conspiracy, I would think that people would be more likely to think that the companies are conspiring against science to further their economic goals.

It all depends on where you see the social threat coming from. Some people are terrified of the power of government. Mix in a proclivity for paranoia, and the mind generates the story-line. And it is *believed*.

Incidentally, Friedrich Hayek [wikipedia.org], in many ways the original market fundamentalists, believed that government should exercise its power to break up powerful corporate institutions so that they do not rig the system for themselves. Hayek saw this as the only primary role of the government in the econom

Wait, what? Nearly all domain experts DO agree on that. Only a vanishingly small percentage of climate scientists think that human actions aren't affecting the climate, and more specifically, that CO2 levels aren't affecting the climate.

I haven't read the article or the paper yet; I can't conclude whether you're right and picked a bad example, or if you're exactly the sort of person it's supposedly talking about.:)

So let me get this straight, is your argument that:Premise: Scientific consensus with lots of evidence says that a certain problem exists, butPremise: The solutions proposed so far to address the problem involve ideologies distasteful to you, soConclusion: The science must be wrong.

Let me make a similar argument that we'll both agree is absurd:Premise: There are reliable historical reports that Stalin sent millions of people to the gulag.Premise: But acknowledging these facts means that maybe Communism isn't so peachy.Conclusion: The historical reports must be capitalist propaganda.

My argument is:
Premise: Scientific consensus is that a certain problem exists, which means that we must institute a particular policy agenda.
Premise: Most of those supporting the first premise have previously made other arguments that claim some other problem means that we must institute that same policy agenda.
Conclusion: Those who are claiming that the "science is settled" are more interested in interpreting the evidence in order to promote a particular policy agenda than they are in finding out what is really happening.
The biggest problem is that anybody who questions the need for government intervention in the economy is considered to be someone who "denies the science."

I think some people forget, or have not considered, that there are four major levels to the global warming discussion:

1) The fact of global warming, meaning that the average surface temperature has been increasing outside of known cycles. This is a question of fact, of observation, and though it is a complex one (average global temperature is not an easy thing to measure) it is solid. The only thing that can be questioned on this is if someone can find an error with the methods.

2) The theory of man made global warming, that the primary or exclusive cause of said warming is the increase atmospheric CO2 (also measured, which is easier to measure) that is caused by human emissions. Like any theory, this is always up for debate. If a better or more complete explanation can be found then it'll be replaced. That doesn't mean it is wrong, just that it could be, theories can always be wrong. You don't prove them true, you repeatedly show they aren't false.

3) The judgement/claim that this will be a net bad thing for humanity. This is based off of various theories, hypothesis and claims of what may happen due to this warming. Any change will have good and bad parts for humans, that's just how it goes, so someone can look at what they believe is likely as a result of the change and make a judgement that overall the change will make things worse.

4) The policy/politics position that the correct thing to do about this is to drastically cut CO2 emissions, institute cap and trade, and increase government control of industry. This is a policy view, not a science one. Science doesn't dictate what we must do, only helps us understand the world we live in. We then decide how to act on that. Nor is it the only proposition for what to do (other than do nothing, which is a valid option though perhaps a suboptimal one).

Well here's the thing: People can agree with some but not all of that. Someone can agree that the Earth is getting warmer, and that CO2 is likely the prime cause, but reject that it will be worse for humanity. Or they could agree that it will be worse for humanity but reject what to do about it.

However it seems many people want to lump it all together. A situation of "You have to accept that the Earth is getting warmer, the evidence is extremely solid. Once you accept that, everything else follows logically, you can't question the proposed solutions, they are science!" As such if someone rejects any part, they accuse them of being anti-science and blind to the observations.

It's a classic free-rider problem and requires government intervention (and I say that as a general believer in the free market). The best way to deal with it is to simply tax carbon emissions. That provides direct de-incentive on the behavior you want to stop, while leaving it to the market as to how to lessen that behavior. Other tax rates can be adjusted so that the all-over government take isn't any larger. The main thing is that it should be flat, without exceptions or breaks. Leave it up to peopl

No, it only makes you deluded. It would only make you a denier if you denied the fact that AGW is happening. If you believe that it's happening but think that free market can somehow magically handle it, that's not AGW denial.

And the point of the study is that people who believe in free market in fact do deny the science behind AGW (i.e. that it's proven to be real and manmade), rather than merely opposing specific economic policies.

Really? He had to do a study to conclude that people who believe in the free market reject attempts to replace it with a state-run economy?

The supposed existence of such attempts is a conspiracy theory, as is the idea that people who disagree with you do not "believe in the free market". Hardcore Libertarian ideology provides a lot of the misconceptions and straw men needed to justify rejecting climate science. It's those justifications that are the issue here, not the final conclusions drawn from them.

I think there are many reasons to lump disbelief of global warming with the distrust of vaccines. Both groups of people have these beliefs, despite an overwhelming volume of data that says otherwise. Worse yet, showing these people data that contradicts their beliefs bizarrely reenforces the baseless beliefs. There is a common phenomenon (psychological) going on here, and it is worthy of study.

"Global warming" as the term is generally used is not science. It's a political program. It's true that measured temperatures are higher than the last hundred years or so. That's a fact. But the "why it's happening" is not science, it's conjecture (I deliberately don't use the word theory, because I respect theory).

In other words, you disrespect 97% of the scientists - that's the proportion of those who consider man-made CO2 emissions as the most likely cause (or strongest forcing mechanism) for global warming. Since you hold such an extraordinary position, I would be very interested to read the scientific basis of it.

Science isn't a popularity contest. It isn't a case of saying "Well most people agree with this so it must be right!" Science is about evidence. When someone questions the veracity of a theory, you respond with the evidence, not with "Well most people agree with me!"

Now it's fine if consensus is how you want to deal with your beliefs, it is a valid way to do it. However don't go and then try and talk science. Science is NOT about consensus. It is a process for knowing about the universe.

... as government less and less appears to be capable of solving the big social and economic problems of our time.

It probably has something to do with putting people in charge of government who believe that government can do nothing right. It's fucking ridiculous. You would have to be a complete moron to put in someone into any position of authority or control in a company if they believed that said company could do nothing right. It'd be foolish. Yet that is the very thing that conservatives are doing with our government.

... as government less and less appears to be capable of solving the big social and economic problems of our time.

It probably has something to do with putting people in charge of government who believe that government can do nothing right. It's fucking ridiculous. You would have to be a complete moron to put in someone into any position of authority or control in a company if they believed that said company could do nothing right. It'd be foolish. Yet that is the very thing that conservatives are doing with our government.